3 ms·
I think what it is, is bad sampling procedures. For example, in the study, they had to get permission of parents to evaluate the kids and only 36% ( ! ) of tho
by vasilipupkin 11y ago
I think what it is, is bad sampling procedures. For example, in the study, they had to get permission of parents to evaluate the kids and only 36% ( ! ) of those not in pre-k agreed to be evaluated. So, I think this is just biased sampling at work.
- baldfat 11y agoHaving looked seriously into this study it does appear to be done correctly. I struggle with it is Pre-K's fault and not what are we doing wrong with K-3, which is were I think our Public Education System (Especially in Urban Schools) are at our weakest. The "common sense" of start early for reading became all 5 year olds must learn to read became my daughters 3 hours of reading a day Kindergarten and 2.5 hours of math with no recesses.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- vasilipupkin 11y agoThe issue is not that it's done incorrectly, the issue is that the limitations of the available sample are such that there will be a bias introduced. Most parents did not respond to request to be evaluated ! that's a very strong indication of a possible bias
- baldfat 11y agoIt states that the raw values come from the school database with a sample size of around 3,000 children. Also the teachers were giving the responses at the end of the school year. The parents did have to sign a letter at some point to be apart of this but it appears that there is an issue with the outcomes. I fully believe what is happening in my Head Start really is making a difference, but it seems to be harder to see the advantages right now with this research paper.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- vasilipupkin 11y agoonly 32% of non-participants gave consent for their children to be evaluated. Nuff said.
- baldfat 11y agoThank you. This study has rocked a lot of people in Head Start around the nation. This could cause problems with funding in the years ahead.